Making Things Worse

Back in December 2011, I used data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve to demonstrate how Pres Obama's policies have made this economic recovery much weaker and slower than past ones.

Since World War II, the economy rebounded at a rate generally proportional to the recession that preceded the recovery.  But not this time.  This time, the downturn was steep, but the "recovery" has been shallow and slow.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato institute did something similar a year ago, and revisited the issue more recently.  The difference is that he compared Pres Obama's weak recovery only to Pres Reagan's much, much stronger recovery.

Those two charts showed that the current recovery was very weak compared to the boom of the early 1980s.

But perhaps that was an unfair comparison. Maybe the Reagan recovery started strong and then hit a wall. Or maybe the Obama recovery was the economic equivalent of a late bloomer So let’s look at the same charts, but add an extra year of data. Does it make a difference?  Meh…not so much. 

As you can see, the Reagan recovery didn't just rebound in proportion to the recession, it actually exceeded the trajectory of the recession.  In fact, it was literally off the charts.  Mitchell points to a Wall Street Journal article that expounds on the difference between the two recoveries.

If in this “recovery” our economy had grown and generated jobs at the average rate achieved following the 10 previous postwar recessions, GDP per person would be $4,528 higher and 13.7 million more Americans would be working today. …President Ronald Reagan’s policies ignited a recovery so powerful that if it were being repeated today, real per capita GDP would be $5,694 higher than it is now—an extra $22,776 for a family of four. Some 16.9 million more Americans would have jobs.

Mitchell then points out that Pres Obama didn't cause the recession, but he's continued - and even worsened - the bad policies that did cause it.

• Bush increased government spending. Obama has been increasing government spending.
• Bush adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies. Obama adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies.
• Bush bailed out politically connected companies. Obama has been bailing out politically connected companies.
• Bush supported the Fed’s easy-money policy. Obama has been supporting the Fed’s easy-money policy.
• Bush created a new healthcare entitlement. Obama created a new healthcare entitlement.
• Bush imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector. Obama imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector.

Is this the Hope'n'Change(TM) you voted for, Obamaphiles?  Face it.  Empirical evidence proves that Pres Obama made things worse by doubling down on the bad policies that caused the recession in the first place.

Finally, Mitchell ends with this very good point.

This is why I always tell people not to pay attention to party labels. Bigger government doesn’t work, regardless of whether a politician is a Republican or Democrat. The problem isn’t Obamanomics, it’s Bushobamanomics. But since that’s a bit awkward, let’s just call it statism.

True, and that's what scares me.  All Democrats are statists, but the vast majority of Republicans are too.